User talk:Mr. Stradivarius

• ♪ Main
• Talk
• To do
• Tools
• Contributions
• Userboxes
• Awards
• Email me ♪

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to ask me anything, but please keep things civil.

Celebrity Big Brother 11

Hi, the dates you have added for the start date need to be in the english format (dd/mm/yyy) not american, and there also needs to be a source. Thanks. --MSalmon (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. :P Go ahead and make another edit request and I'm sure someone will get round to it soon enough. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's ok, the page has been changed to semi-protected now,and the user has been blocked now --MSalmon (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Canada

Hi. Thanks for making the change. Sadly, may I request that you change the "Okanagan" category to "WikiProject Okanagan articles" please? Also, I believe, for example, "Stub-Class Okanagan" should be "Stub-Class Okanagan articles" instead, same goes for other classes, that will need to probably be changed as well. Thanks, TBrandley 21:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. If you work up the corrected code in the sandbox and submit another edit request, I'll get around to it when I have a moment. Don't forget to test the change on the test cases page too. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan

Hello Sir

In last 4 to 5 days back, Shah Rukh Khan was Medal of Honoured in Morocco International Film Festival few days back. There Shah Rukh Khan was Introduced as Demigod of Cinema. So, I want you to add another nick name of Shah Rukh Khan as "Demigod Of Cinema".I am sending you various websites:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.38.160 (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, but this isn't the right place to propose your edit - the right place is Talk:Shah Rukh Khan. I see you have made a post there, but it wasn't very clear what you wanted to be changed in the article. You have to say exactly what you want to be done before an administrator can make an edit for you. However, the protection on the page is going to expire in an hour or so, so it might be easier to just wait and add it in after that. Make sure that your edit has consensus, though, and don't edit war to keep it in the article, otherwise the page might be protected again. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perm

Hey Stradivarius. Although I'm a reviewer and understand the duty of reviewers, I'd like to know which are the requirements to have the right, as I don't have them very clear. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hahc21. You can find them at Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming a reviewer. There are also some instructions for administrators at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin DRN suddenly closed, POV removed & edit approved

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Template:Infobox film Narrator

Thanks for your help, but as you can see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_film#Narrator, we were not looking to change the way Narrated by was displayed in the infobox to Narrator(s) - that was only for the instructions. Please change it back so it displays as Narrated by in the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Infobox airport - change request November 27th

I did the changes in that sandbox like you suggested. I left a note in that talk page two days ago, but there has been no discernible activity. My only problem, apart from my eyes going bad from so many }{, is really to do with the <noinclude> stuff. I presume these are to make the documentation work, but it all got too much for me.

Incidentally, looking at my own live work, I see I entirely replicated the other[n] elements by use of <tr> and <td> etc. as footnotes

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Tue 12:26, wikitime= 04:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Judging from Template talk:Infobox airport, it looks like Zyxw has taken care of the <noinclude> stuff. It also looks like there is more to be added, and that the new additions will need to be tested. Once all of this is done, feel free to reactivate the {{edit requested}} template on the talk page. By the way, you no longer have to save the sandbox each time to see what the test cases look like. There's a new feature activated for template pages in the latest version of MediaWiki that makes it possible to preview how a template would look on a particular page. You should see the text "Preview page with this template" underneath the save page button in the edit window for template pages. Try using that. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

• News and notes: Wobbly start to ArbCom election, but turnout beats last year's

• Featured content: Wikipedia goes to Hell

• Technology report: The new Visual Editor gets a bit more visual

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Human Rights

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion templates

Hi, I was cleaning up templates and I came across these two: Template:Speedy deletion templates and Template:Speedy deletion notices. I was wondering if they are the same/similar templates, and if the 2nd one could be redirected to the first one? (because the word "templates" makes more sense). Just wondering if there is a reason why there are 2 of them. Please fill me in, thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The templates are the actual speedy templates, {{db-g1}}, etc. The notices are what goes on users talk pages when you've tagged an article they created for deletion. Legoktm (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, what Legoktm said. Template:Speedy deletion templates is used on Template:db-xx/doc pages, and Template:Speedy deletion notices is used on Template:db-xx-notice/doc pages. They could both do with a bit of cleaning up though, as it looks like the html stopped displaying nicely when MediaWiki was updated the time before last. (Or maybe one of the times I upgraded Firefox - not sure about that.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but what is the difference between the two that necessitates one being used by db-xx and the other being used by db-xx-notice? I could barely find a difference, if so, it is very subtle. I'm still wondering if the two could be combined, somehow. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could merge them together if you wanted all the speedy deletion templates in one place. The result of a merge might end up looking like the templates section of {{speedy deletion navbox}} - was that the kind of thing you were thinking of? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, I see the difference in the sidebars :)! One is for the notices... now I think I get it. Just leave the sidebars as is, and I see how it's combined in the nvbx too. I think it's alright as it is, now. Thanks, sorry for the trouble!! When I have a chance, I'll see if they need any updating. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at CAT:EP

I am not an admin, but is there anything that I can do to help? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help! I suppose you could go through the list of requests and decline ones that are made in bad faith or obviously made in error. For example, if someone uses the template but doesn't make a request, or if someone files a request that obviously goes against policy. (Like someone requesting that unsourced controversial material be added to a fully-protected biography of a living person.) However, if there's any chance that someone might contest your action, it's probably better to wait for an admin to do it.

Also, if you like template coding or JavaScript, it would be very helpful to go through and review/test code that people propose. Often code is proposed that makes simple mistakes, or someone makes a request for a template feature but doesn't actually write the code. Often these kinds of requests sits around for days, only for the patrolling admin to ask the requester to write up or fix the code in the template sandbox. And then it takes another several days while the improved code is reviewed again. If good template coders who aren't admins helped to patrol the category then these kinds of changes could be made the first time the admin takes a look.

Hope this answers your question. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I forgot to mention - please make it clear that you are not an admin if you answer requests, either by using {{nao}} or just by saying so. People tend to assume that the person who answers the request is an admin, so it is best to be clear about these things. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool beans. I shall dip my toe into these waters as soon as I read the appropriate guidline articles. Thanks for the opportunity, I wasn't sure if there was anything I could do, not being an admin. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Trademark

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Trademark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC closure questions

In order to address questions posed by some of the participants at Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_mediation/The Beatles, Mr. Stradivarius and Feezo have opened this thread in which editors may ask questions relating to Newyorkbrad's closure. In so doing, we ask that participants respect the following:

• Brad's closure of the RfC was consistent with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices. As the unanimously elected closer of the RfC, Brad has the full standing and confidence to make judgement calls on the RfC and peripheral issues relating to it.
• There is no expectation that this question & answer session will lead to the RfC's outcome being altered.
• Please keep your questions brief and specific. Vague, open-ended questions (e.g., "Do you really think it was a good idea to...") will be removed. In particular, suggestions that Newyorkbrad's closure was improper, or complaints about the RfC's implementation or outcome, will be treated as disruptive.
• As a procedural note, this thread is a follow-up to the RfC, and not part of the mediation case.

For Feezo and Mr. Stradivarius — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc has expressed three concerns about my closure:

1. Whether I was the right person to close the debate, given that several months ago I participated in an ANI thread that led to a block of a particular editor. With due respect, and per the comments above, I don't really see continuing this discussion as productive.
2. Whether my "caveat" that "The" rather than "the" can continue to be used in direct quotations from sources that use the capital "T", even though Wikipedia has decided to use the small "t". I don't know whether this continues to be an issue.
3. Whether my "caveat" that although the sizable majority of commenters in the RfC poll supported the small "t" and hence that was the outcome of the poll and the RfC and the mediation, it might still be the case on occasion that the better course is to recast the sentence where a small "t" might be unexpectedly jarring. (I had in mind sentences that contain other uses of the capital "T", e.g. in the name of an album, so it could be awkward to see a "t" and a "T" in comparable contexts in the same question.) I think this was the most serious of GabeMc's concerns. However, I'd like to know whether this comment in the closing is causing any actual problems in editing these articles, as opposed to purely theoretical ones.

Given that my purpose in agreeing when I was asked to close the poll/RfC was to resolve the dispute rather than perpetuate it, I'm glad to participate in addressing questions 2 and 3. One thing that should be stressed, though: the outcome of the poll, and hence of my closure, was clear, and the "caveats" were intended to be minor points in the overall outcome and closure, not to overshadow it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gabe has asked to me to comment, so I hope no-one will mind if I do so up here. Just above, Brad says that there could be a problem with the small 't' jarring with an album title. Indeed, but With the Beatles has now been corrected, and as for the white album, The Beatles, it seems to me an apt contrast with the Beatles themselves. And as for the avoid-dance, is anyone actually dancing? Rothorpe (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Gabe

1) I agree with Strad in terms of: "Brad has the full standing and confidence to make judgement calls on the RfC", but I was not even remotely aware that every party to the mediation would be essentially "signing over" any and all decision making to Brad in regard to "peripheral issues relating to it". We asked him for a simple answer to a poll with only two options, anything beyond that, while "consistent with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practices", was not even explained or discussed during the mediation as a possibility. In fact, the only reason that we asked Brad to close the RfC was because Feezo and Strad had already publicly denounced the "avoid-dance" as a non-viable unworkable non-solution. Had I known that asking a third-party to close the RfC would mean us signing over all rights to a project that we had diligently worked on for several months, then I would have strongly reconsidered my suggestion to hold another RfC and instead I would have agreed to follow whatever the mediators determined. Having said that, I fully agree to drop the discussion of whether or not Brad was too involved based on his active participation in the sanctioning of a vocal party to the mediation. I do predict however, that this particular point will come back to haunt us next year, but hopefully I am wrong about that. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

2) My position on Brad's 2nd caveat, which limits or prevents our ability to achieve orthographic conformity within articles is simple. We did not discuss the issue during mediation, so his unsolicited personal opinion on the matter is both an unneeded and potentially complicating point. I think we should allow the MoS editors to determine what is, and what is not an allowable orthographic change at the appropriate MoS talk page, and the scope of this mediation be limited to the issues actually discussed prior to Brad's closure. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

3) In regard to his 3rd caveat. It directly contradicts the mediators pre-RfC position that "avoiding" violates the principle of least astonishment while unduly constraining prose. In response to Brad's above comment: "I'd like to know whether this comment in the closing is causing any actual problems in editing these articles" Well, this was the exact situation we were in before I filed for mediation, in fact, if anything, the "avoid-dance" forced the issue to the point where the mediation was required. If Brad is asking for specific diffs to prove that the avoid-dance has caused issues since his closure, then I find that position to be a bit too convenient. Just look at Paul McCartney: Revision history during the first two weeks of July 2012, the scenario immediately preceding the mediation. If Brad wants to see a more recent diff, look here. As far as "purely theoretical ones", well, that we even needed a mediation in the first place sort of proves that the problem isn't theoretical IMO. I quote Feezo: "The fact that this mediation was opened shows that the compromise did not settle the issue. As a practical matter, it did not work ... the mediators see the mid-sentence compromise as an unsatisfactory solution ... (that) will be considered ruled out for the remainder of the mediation" and "the resulting formal mediation case shows that (the 'avoid-dance') did not ultimately resolve the issue." Again, while I fully agree in principle with Strad (see above), if the "avoid-dance" was "considered ruled out for the remainder of the mediation", then why did it come back up in Brad's closure and why are the parties to the mediation subject to Brad's opinion not supported during the mediation by the mediators or the involved parties? In fact, a "Big Letterist" suggested it be removed from the poll and not even one person disagreed, thus we removed it as an option. One could argue that at that point, we no longer even needed an uninvolved third-party to close the RfC, but that's neither here nor there. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, about your first point - I wonder if you may be misunderstanding how the processes of mediation and RfC relate to each other. Mediation is non-binding, and is completely dependent on the involved parties coming to an agreement. MedCom used to have a rule that all parties have to consent to mediation before mediation can go ahead. The logic behind this was that if just one party doesn't consent, then it makes mediation meaningless, as any outcome of a mediation won't affect them - they can simply continue editing the disputed content without regard for what others may think. This rule has been relaxed slightly in the current policy, but the basic principle still applies. There is no onus on anyone outside of a mediation case to accept its outcome.

Now an RfC, on the other hand, is a little different. RfCs aim at getting input from a broad spectrum of the community, and they can be held even if some of the participants do not consent to them. If RfCs are to be formally closed, then an admin will judge the rough consensus from them, a process which does not require the agreement of all parties. And importantly, while RfCs are not a vote, and consensus is judged according to the strength of arguments presented, more weight is typically given to RfCs with a higher number of editors. Hence we require well-advertised community-wide discussions for changes to major policies such as the one I was involved in at Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC, but RfCs on individual articles can find a workable consensus with much lower participation.

When both mediation and RfCs mix, as was the case with the present dispute, the RfC usually trumps the mediation. The key point to consider is which discussion has the more solid consensus. I suppose that it could be possible for the outcome of a mediation to outweigh that of an RfC if the RfC has very low participation or is otherwise flawed, and the mediation has a higher participation. But in the vast majority of cases an RfC will garner more participants and have more opinions in line with policy than people working together to find a consensus at a mediation.

Our case was rather special, in that it was a mediation leading to an RfC. In such a case, all the mediation participants can do is set the structure of the RfC, ask the right questions, and as we did, assemble the relevant evidence. Despite this stage taking considerable time, and despite its necessity, it is not the mediation stage where the real decisions happen. The real decisions happen in the RfC discussion itself. Furthermore, the mediation process cannot control what people choose to talk about in the RfC. So even if we disallow the option of excluding "the" mid-sentence, we cannot stop people from discussing it in the RfC. RfC participants are free to discuss whatever they like, as long as it is relevant to the discussion and complies with Wikipedia's behavioural policies. And when a closing admin comes along to close the discussion, they judge the arguments that have been brought forth during the discussion, not the arguments as defined by the questions set by the mediation parties. So it is entirely appropriate for an admin to include a point in their close if it was a part of the discussion, even if it was ruled out as an option during the mediation stage.

This has been a rather long comment, but hopefully it clears some things up. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about it. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Strad, while I quess I can understand how an RfC might trump the RfM from which it sprang, I don't understand why Brad, or any closer, has the ability/power to undermine/overrule what had been previously decided during mediation, or to throw out his unsolicited opinions, but I fully accept your above explaination, with one caveat: this should have been explained to the parties of the mediaiton, by the mediators prior to the RfC, not after. Also, if you are saying that Brad's caveats are supported by the poll results, then I would ask you: how many people supported the "avoid-dance" during the poll? 2 or 3, maybe 4 out of 125! Is that really a consensus? Really? At any rate, it sounds like you are saying here that this discussion thread is merely a formality, and that Brad's caveats, no matter how many times he downplays their importance, or how many people take issue with them, will stand regardless of what I, or anyone else says. Is that an accurate assessment of your position Strad? It seems to me, a simple striking of the "avoid-dance" caveat would seal this deal for good. And since Brad has repeatedly downplayed its significance, I wonder why is he fighting any amendment of it tooth-and-nail? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In hindsight, you are probably right that it would have been best to give an explanation of how mediation interacts with RfCs. The reason I didn't do this was that it simply didn't occur to me that it would be necessary. I assumed that all the parties were familiar with RfCs and how they are usually run - that they are not a vote, but a discussion, and that closers interpret the whole discussion in their closes. I haven't expressed any opinion either way on how the caveats are supported by the discussion in the RfC. Regarding your desire to change the result - this is not impossible, but we need to follow the proper process. The first step with any contested close is to discuss it with the closer, and that is why we're here. First let's discuss the ramifications of the close and see what Newyorkbrad thinks of everyone's suggestions. If discussion here does not reach a conclusion you are happy with, the next step would be to go to WP:AN to get the close reviewed by uninvolved administrators. Standard procedure at WP:AN would apply, so admins would look at the behaviour of all parties as well as the close itself. I am not aware of any other avenues for review, short of having another RfC, and I think I can safely say that there is little appetite for another RfC on this subject at the moment. Does this answer your questions? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it answers some of my above questions, so thanks for that. To clarify, 1) IYO, is the avoidance caveat supported by the RfC poll and discussion, or are you unable to comment on that particular point for some reason that I am unaware of, 2) if so why? and 3) are you saying that if Brad unilaterally decides that no amendment to the closure is needed that my only recourse is to take him to AN/I? I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy or an anarchy, but I certainly hope it's not a tyranny either. 4) No, I don't want another RfC, but I will point out that the RfC we did hold shows more support for the "context" solution than it does the avoidance non-solution. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't "fought" anything, except perhaps your criticism of my having been chosen to close the poll in the first place, which I hope is now a moot point. I'm reading here to see if anyone other than you (who initially was lavish in your praise of the closing I wrote) finds the comments appended to the closing to be at all problematic. If there is significant feeling that they are creating problems, then we figure out what to do. If the problem is almost entirely theoretical, that might be something else. Please do your best to de-personalize your approach to this situation and to keep it in its proper perspective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(Comment removed)

As I said at User talk:Newyorkbrad, the caveat is undesirable, against the spirit of free-flowing prose. The first two people to agree were User:Lukobe and User:Binksternet. Rothorpe (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. GabeMc is by no means alone here. --Lukobe (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My initial position on brad's close was that it was balanced and fair. I thought he threw a bone to the people on the losing side of the RfC with the bit about keeping the "avoid" option, but I did not think the issue was potentially toxic until those same people used it for leverage against a satisfactory implementation of the overall ruling in favor of small case 'the'. At this point I don't think the "avoid" option should ever have been part of the close. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The caveat was dismissed as unworkable, and that decision should be respected. Otherwise the big T faction will continue to alter references to 'the Beatles' to read 'the band' or 'the group'. Yes, they really are that absurd. Rothorpe (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, so here are my thoughts:

1. Brad was unanimously chosen for this job. I had no objections to his selection then, and I have none now.

2. While Brad clearly gave a great deal of thought to his closure, I am of the opinion that the avoidance caveat was unnecessary in the extreme. Other than this problem (admittedly a major one), I am pretty much happy with his handling of the case, and I thank him for his time and work on it.

3. The avoidance measure has been impossible from the beginning. It was implemented several years ago as a good-faith attempt at compromise, but everything since has proven that it is unworkable, in addition to being self-evidently constraining and (to be frank) ridiculous. If it were otherwise, we wouldn’t be here. Implementing any kind of adherence to it at this point, when it received negligible support in the poll, and was actually removed as a poll option by consensus of both sides of the debate, places an undue burden on editors and potentially bars any related articles from ever meeting the featured article criteria for prose.

It serves no purpose other than to appease those who prefer uppercase, and looks like a back-door attempt at giving the uppercase crowd some kind of consolation prize. I cannot say that this Brad’s motivation (I very much suspect that it was not), but this is what I see as its effect. It should be withdrawn from the closure statement and promptly forgotten about.

I am currently working towards a deadline at the moment, but I will check this thread again in the morning and comment as necessary. - Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone for your opinions so far. I count five different editors who have expressed displeasure with the caveat, and this shows that concerns are not just limited to one or two editors, which is a good start. However, at the moment no-one has brought forward any specific examples of how the caveat has affected real editing decisions. At the top of this thread, Feezo and I were clear that we wanted to avoid "suggestions that Newyorkbrad's closure was improper, or complaints about the RfC's implementation or outcome". So to keep this thread from being a general forum for complaints, I would like us to focus on specific situations where the caveat has impacted editorial decisions. Binksternet, you said that the caveat has been used to provide leverage for supporters of upper-case "T" - could you point us to the specific situation you are talking about? Or if anyone else is aware of such situations, it would be very helpful if you could link to them here so that we can discuss them. And as always, let me know if you have any questions, comments or concerns. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to look for poor behaviour involving the "avoid" option but I looked quite thoroughly at five biographies (band + 4) and one song but I mostly saw a bunch of people feeling their way through the interpretation of NYB's closure as it applies to direct quotes, infobox lists separated by commas, headers above sections, and hatnotes. Here are the only examples I found of the "avoid" option being leveraged following NYB's closure on 3 November:

• Beatles => group, 04:41, 5 November 2012, Tvoz
• "The Beatles" => them or they, 02:33, 7 November 2012, GabeMc (avoiding capital "The" in a direct quote)

I don't think these demonstrate bad behaviour. Surprisingly, the latter is from GabeMc who we all know is firmly against avoidance. Sorry for overstating the case in my comments above; I had been seeing so many changes and reversions of the capital/lower case variety that I came to think more of them were also about avoidance. Binksternet (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was not "pinged" or alerted that this conversation had begun again (apparently only supporters of one position were pinged which feels a lot like canvassing to me), even though my single edit from a month and a half ago was going to be cited again (see "Comments from Gabe" item 3 above) as some kind of evidence of rampant caveat-following. In fact all I was doing was improving the prose - the relevant sentence had used a pronoun ("they") for some time, and as soon as the rfc closed Gabe immediately changed it to "the Beatles" for no apparent reason, saying "use proper name". Nothing in the Rfc requires that pronouns have to be changed to proper names - it has to be based on the flow of the prose. I felt that it was better writing to say "the group" in that sentence, rather than repeating the name yet again. It was not a reaction to the lower case "t", it was a reaction to the writing having been made worse. The words "the group" were not in the intro, and to my eye the prose flowed better with "the group" than with "the Beatles" at that point, since "Beatles" already appeared several times in the section. I was not invoking the caveat or anything else other than attempting to improve the writing. Gabe was at the same time in the midst of changing quoted material from the original upper case T which another editor objected to - perhaps that contributed to his apparent concern that somehow there was going to be widespread caveat invoking in that one edit. So to be clear: I was not avoiding or dancing or edit warring or invoking Brad's caveats, although as I said at the time in the closure comments, I think his caveats made sense and were helpful. As someone who has professionally edited for many years, what I care about is that our articles be better written. When the prose calls for the proper name, we should use the proper name, but when it is redundant we should not. That's why there are pronouns, and alternate words. That would be the case regardless of how Brad closed the Rfc and with or without his caveat about avoiding mid-sentence use - I'll change an awkward use of a proper name to a pronoun or substitute word any time, and these articles are not exempt from that. This is much ado about absolutely nothing - I'm in favor of good, free-flowing prose, and there was nothing in Brad's caveat that prevents it- in fact, it encourages it. And unless I've missed it, I have no idea what Binksternet is talking about either. Tvoz/talk 07:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I haven't changed my mind about the caveat, though. Rothorpe (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Binksternet, I didn't see your reply above until now (no edit conflict warning on talk pages, and I had this screen open while I was doing something off wiki) - as I think I explained just now, I wasn't "leveraging" anything with my edit - in fact, I dont really know what you mean by that. I was just trying to improve the prose, when it seemed to me to have been made worse by the previous edit. Tvoz/talk 07:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about not alerting you about this earlier. You're right, I should have alerted everyone involved with this about this thread when I first posted it. I have now gone through and left a message on the talk page of all mediation participants who haven't posted here yet. This thread has only been up for 24 hours so far, so it shouldn't be too late for the others to get up to speed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that would have been a good idea, but my comment about canvassing, like HotStop's below, is not that no notices were posted, but that one participant selectively requested comments (both here and at Brad's talk page before this was opened) only from individuals he thought of as supporters of his position. It's not the first time in this mediation process that he has done something like that, and yet it continues. Seems to me that this should have been addressed long ago with him when sanctions were being handed out, and perhaps it would not have happened this time again. Tvoz/talk 17:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your concern is duly noted; however, I can't comment on user conduct issues due to the conflict of interest it would create with my position as mediator (although this thread is not actually part of the mediation case itself). If you wish to pursue complaints about conduct the proper thing to do would be to use one of our conduct dispute resolution venues. And if you choose to go this route be aware that the behaviour of all parties would be examined, not just Gabe's. (Though I'm sure you knew that already; sorry if this is stating the obvious.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Steelbeard1 I still consider the name of the band to be "The Beatles" which is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd., despite the inconsistencies of whether "the" is rendered in upper of lower case so I will continue to use "The Beatles" in midsentence when referring to the band by name as a noun. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for Clarification: I saw the discussions at NYB's talk page, and am more than a little bemused, and would appreciate clarification. As I understand it (and taking a non-Beatles example), Brad's caveat amounts to this: Suppose an editor encounters the following...

The main campus of The University of West Lavatoryville is located in Upper Woop Woop.

...and the capital 'T' needs removing, then the sentence would become...

The main campus of the University of West Lavatoryville is located in Upper Woop Woop.

...but, Brad's caveat means that an editor might exercise his or her discretion and redraft it to...

The University of West Lavatoryville has its main campus in Upper Woop Woop.

...and that either option is a reasonable outcome. Is this right? Is the situation that Brad suggested that rather than just changing a "T" to a "t" mid-sentence, that an editor might choose (but not be obligated) to modify the sentence such as by arranging for the drama-inducing capital "T" to come at the start of the sentence? And, if so, is this seemly unremarkable caveat (that editors have discretion in how they address a mid-sentence capital "T") really worth all this discussion / debate / teeth-gnashing? Have I missed something big here? EdChem (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No, all NYB'S caveat said that it might be better prose (and more economical use of space, BTW) not to say something like:

The main campus of the University of West Lavatoryville is located in Upper Woop Woop, while the football stadium of the University of West Lavatoryville is located in Lower Woop Woop, the veterinary school of the University of West Lavatoryville is on Hwy 144 north of Upper Lower Woop Woop, the medical school of the University of West Lavatoryville is in Tim Tebowville, the agricultural extension of the University of West Lavatoryville is in Justin Biebertown and the University of West Lavatoryville has a vital online university operated exclusively by alumni of the University of West Lavatoryville. Jburlinson (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't need saying then, does it? Rothorpe (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Hot Stop I had a conversation with Gabe a couple weeks back viewable here. To re-iterate what I said there I don't believe The/the should be avoided at all costs, but I don't necessarily have an issue with the caveat. Has it caused any actual problems yet? If not, I really think this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'd also like to add that in general RFC closers are able to use discretion when judging consensus. While a third option (avoidance) wasn't on the table at the RFC, I think there's an element of common sense that says if so much effort is being wasted on an RFC and prior discussions, maybe a compromise can be reached. Like Tvoz above, I'm also disappointed only proponents of one side were notified by Gabe. This is the definition of canvassing. Hot Stop (Talk) 15:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

FTR, I do not agree that my actions were inappropriate in notifing parties with concerns about the avoid caveat. Brad basically insisted that either I prove that I wasn't the only one with an issue or this discussion would soon end. Also, how can one votestack if there is no !vote? I was merely attempting to show that I am not completely alone in this concern. Anyway, its a strawman that avoids the issue at hand. I assumed that all parties to the mediation would be notified by Strad or Feezo, as they now have. Also, I was under the impression that off-topic comments would be removed, but as of yet only mine have been while several disparaging comments directed against me remain. Strad, please hold all parties to this discussion to the same standard. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. - Tvoz, is this comment a theoretical prediction of future events? "I also hope that the "minimizing mid-sentence use" concept is heeded - it worked before. Perhaps with your imprimatur on it as a valid suggestion, it will work again - I hope so." (emphasis added) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you asking me and not the person who wrote it? Hot Stop (Talk) 22:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't asking you Hot Stop, I'll clarify now. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are you asking this at all? I'm not the one who makes predictions, you are. How many different ways do I have to say that my comment was merely a hope that common sense and good writing would prevail? Tvoz/talk 06:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by Jburlinson

1. NYB was unanimously chosen as the poll judge and all agreed to abide by his judgment. Prior to that, another admin had been proposed but was passed over due to their involvement in a previous related dispute. Nobody posed the same objection regarding NYB. This issue should be closed definitively and permanently. 2. Text within quotations should not be tampered with unless it is absolutely necessary to provide clarity (which is why brackets and ellipses are used). Changing the original author’s choices regarding language usage based on an editor’s personal preferences is unacceptable. WP editors need to exercise utmost respect and fidelity when quoting reliable sources that they, themselves, have chosen to convey necessary information to the reader. If there’s a mistake in a quotation, use a [sic]. In this case, obviously, use of [sic] would be inappropriate because writing The Beatles is not a mistake, it’s simply an matter of style. 3. NYB didn’t tell anyone that they were required to use pronouns or other anaphora for the name of the band. He merely confirmed that it’s an option open to all editors that sometimes, indeed many times, results in better prose. Redundantly repeating the name of the band within an article just to enforce a typographical nicety is not in the best interest of the WP project. Jburlinson (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Tvoz/talk 06:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Recent example. - Look at this diff for a very recent example of how Brad's closure has not entirely solved this issue. Note. - It's interesting, to me at least, that none of those Big "T"s in the above linked article needed avoiding before, when uppercased, but I predict that now, once lowered, the sentences will be "re-structured" so as to avoid use, except of course when it begins a sentence, then it will be uppercased, and indeed every instance of "the Beatles" in the article will effectively be uppercase when all the occurrences are moved to the beginnings of sentences. Thus, the "avoid-dance" produces articles with only uppercase occurrences, and is in fact, a backdoor way of achieving all uppercase "the"s. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Again "you predict" and there's no hard evidence. Hot Stop (Talk) 22:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking me to show prima facie empirical evidence of the eventual long-term result of a policy that has not yet been fully implemented? Can you prove that its not going to be a problem? The avoidance caveat is the heart and soul of what led us to this time-wasting lame discussion in the first place. If redacted, the caveat couldn't possibly be a problem, therefore it is also theoretical to assert that there is no reason for concern. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

(Comment removed)

• Another example. - Look at this diff for another example. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• And another. What's interesting about this diff is that "1966 would mark the last year that the Beatles would be tied to their classic "Mop-Top" image" became "1966 would mark the last year that all four Beatles would be tied to their classic "Mop-Top" image", a prime example of what I am talking about. - GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Another. - What I find interesting about this diff, is that prior to my edit, the article contained three instances (I later found three more for a total of six) of "The Beatles" in quotations; however, all these quoted sources use lowercase, so it would seem that editors have already been altering quoted material in favour of "The". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Prime example. - The article, More popular than Jesus is a perfect example of what kind of prose the "avoid-dance" creates. FTR, there are over 1,500 article in the Beatles project. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Current anaphora used at More popular than Jesus to avoid mid-sentence use: "on the lifestyles of the four individual Beatles", "Well known by all four Beatles", "while the individual Beatles themselves" and "all four Beatles". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• For an example of how the caveats have recently caused a dispute among editors please look here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Another example of how the caveats have recently caused a dispute among editors. Re: my alteration of quoted material and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's threats to block me for such. Please see here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Another example of the brilliant and engaging prose (now fixed) that the "avoid-dance" caveat encourages. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
• Here is a good example of how "The Beatles" didn't need to be avoided mid-sentence at this article. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You didn't quote the diff correctly, but, nevertheless, the new edit is more accurate since at least one Beatle, Paul McCartney, is still, to this day being referred to as a mop-top. So saying "all four" Beatles is to be preferred. Jburlinson (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Jburlinson, you recently asked me to leave you alone, I am now doing the same here. We have nothing left to discuss in this regard so please stop badgering my comments. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, your edit here removed two comments from pro-"the" and anti-avoid editors, and this is not the first time (during this mediation) that I've noticed you removing the comments of others (here and here). I will AGF that this is purely accidental, but quite strangely, you have never "accidentally" removed a comment from a pro-"T" editor. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

DR Case on Confucius Institute

Hi Mr. Stardivarius, I'm ready to resume the DR case on the Confucius Institute article. Do I just need to start a new case with a link to the previous case?--PCPP (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. File a new case at WP:DRN, include the link, and you should be good to go. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Orlah (cleaning up unnecessary disambiguation)

Thank you for helping us taking care of this. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Technical problems

Hi again Mr. Stradivarius! In regards to Category:Okanagan, that category is showing talk and category talk pages for some weird reason, when it should not. This may be a technical problem about Wikipedia:WikiProject Okanagan. Do you what is incorrect and how to fix the concern? TBrandley 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You were still seeing some talk pages in the category because the relevant changes were waiting in the job queue. If categories are not changed directly but by means of a template, then those changes are not performed straight away but are put into the job queue. It can sometimes be several days or even weeks before they are processed. However, I have made the wait unnecessary by performing null edits to the relevant talk pages, so they have all been moved over to the proper category now. Have another look at Category:Okanagan and see if anything is out of place. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that did it. Thanks! I'm not very familiar with the job queue and null edits, really. That really helped clean the category up, which is great. Happy Holidays, TBrandley 17:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding: User Page Protection

Hi,

I do not want any one to make changes on my user page as it is personal one and sensitive as well.

Thanks & Regards, Pankaj Bajaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankaj Bajaj Eldeco (talk • contribs) 06:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. That's fine - I only deleted the {{permanently protected}} template from your userpage because it could mislead people into thinking that the page was permanently protected. I'm not really interested in editing the page now the template has gone. Please note that we do have some rules about what you can and can't have on your user page and your user subpages - have a look at Wikipedia:User pages for the details, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions about them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

HI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HI MR.STRADIVARIUS! We haven't talked in soooooooooooooooo long! You were the first one to welcome me into Wikipedia! I'm doing so great here! Got in trouble a few times and was awarded a few times. Hi!!!!!RaidenRules!^{Talk to me!} 15:56 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

• News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results

• WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany

• Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes

• Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook

• Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass

• Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)